{"id":337,"date":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=337"},"modified":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","slug":"oswald-mv-transportation-paga-lmra-preemption-cba","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=337","title":{"rendered":"Oswald v. MV Transportation (PAGA) \u2014 N.D. Cal. dismisses companion PAGA action under LMRA preemption"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Richard Ryan Oswald v. MV Transportation, Inc., et al. (PAGA)<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-05<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-03053<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
PAGA representative action; LMRA Section 301 preemption; collective bargaining agreement; California Labor Code \u00a7\u00a7 510-514; meal and rest period exemptions; commercial driver exemption; Wage Order 9; Burnside two-step test<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Richard Ryan Oswald drove buses for MV Transportation, Inc. on Western Contra Costa Transit Authority routes from August 2023 to November 2024 under a CBA between MV and Teamsters Local 315 effective July 1, 2023. After filing a putative class wage-and-hour suit against MV in Contra Costa County Superior Court (later removed to the Northern District), Oswald filed a parallel Private Attorneys General Act representative action in the same court asserting essentially the same California Labor Code violations on a PAGA basis.<\/p>\n

MV removed the PAGA action under federal-question jurisdiction, asserting that the Labor Management Relations Act \u00a7 301 completely preempts the underlying state-law claims because they require interpretation of the CBA. The court related-cased the matter to Judge Mart\u00ednez-Olgu\u00edn, who was already presiding over the original Oswald class action against MV. MV moved for judgment on the pleadings.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court granted MV\u2019s motion in full, applying the same analysis it had used in the companion class action. The court took judicial notice of the CBA (publicly available, applied to Oswald, and submitted in connection with a Rule 12(c) motion based on LMRA preemption) and Oswald\u2019s commercial driver\u2019s license. It then applied the Ninth Circuit\u2019s two-step Burnside<\/em>\/Curtis<\/em> framework to each Labor Code claim.<\/p>\n

For overtime, Labor Code \u00a7 514 supplied a CBA-based exemption: the MV\/Teamsters CBA expressly provided wages, hours, working conditions, premium overtime rates, and a base wage well above 130% of the California minimum wage in 2023, 2024, and 2025. Under Curtis v. Irwin Industries<\/em>, when \u00a7 514 is satisfied, the right to overtime exists solely under the CBA and is preempted under Section 301.<\/p>\n

For meal periods, Labor Code \u00a7\u00a7 512(e) and 226.7(e) supply parallel exemptions for commercial drivers covered by qualifying CBAs. Article 28 of the MV\/Teamsters CBA expressly opts in. Independently, Oswald qualified as a \u201ccommercial driver\u201d because he held a Class B commercial driver\u2019s license and operated a passenger-transport vehicle, satisfying Labor Code \u00a7 512(g)(1) and Vehicle Code \u00a7\u00a7 260, 15210.<\/p>\n

For rest periods, Wage Order 9 \u00a7 12(C) carves out public transit bus drivers covered by qualifying CBAs. The MV\/Teamsters CBA provides 10-minute rest periods, binding arbitration, premium overtime, and 130%-plus base wages, satisfying every element.<\/p>\n

The remaining minimum-wage, wage-statement, deductions, timely-payment, payroll-records, waiting-time, and UCL allegations were derivative of the preempted overtime, meal, and rest period theories, and so were also preempted under Chavez v. Smurfit Kappa<\/em> and similar authorities. Because all preempted claims existed only by virtue of the CBA, Oswald was required to exhaust the contractual grievance and arbitration procedure under Soremekun<\/em>, Truex<\/em>, and 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett<\/em>. He did not allege any such exhaustion.<\/p>\n

The court directed MV to submit a proposed judgment by January 9, 2026.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n